ArticleHGG advances2025
Leveraging global genetics resources to enhance polygenic prediction across ancestrally diverse populations.
Article in HGG advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence standards for multi-ancestry polygenic prediction.Genome biology · 2026Review
- Polygenic scores in psychiatric research and clinical practice.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026Article
- Comprehensive benchmarking single and multi ancestry polygenic score methods with the PGS-hub platform.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) from multiple ancestral populations are increasingly available, offering opportunities to improve the accuracy and equity of polygenic scores (PGSs). Several methods now aim to leverage multiple GWAS sources, but predictive performance and computational efficiency remain unclear, particularly when individual-level tuning data are unavailable. This study evaluates a comprehensive set of PGS methods across African (AFR), East Asian (EAS), and European (EUR) ancestries for 10 complex traits, using summary statistics from the Ugandan Genome Resource, Biobank Japan, UK Biobank, and the Million Veteran Program. Single-source PGSs were derived using methods including DBSLMM, lassosum, LDpred2, MegaPRS, pT + clump, PRS-CS, QuickPRS, and SBayesRC. Multi-source approaches included PRS-CSx, TL-PRS, X-Wing, and combinations of independently optimized single-source scores. All methods were restricted to HapMap3 variants and used linkage disequilibrium reference panels matching the GWAS super population. A key contribution is a novel application of the LEOPARD method to estimate optimal linear combinations of population-specific PGSs using only summary statistics. Analyses were implemented using the open-source GenoPred pipeline. In AFR and EAS populations, PGS combining ancestry-aligned and European GWASs outperformed single-source models. Linear combinations of independently optimized scores consistently outperformed current jointly optimized multi-source methods, while being substantially more computationally efficient. The LEOPARD extension offered a practical solution for tuning these combinations when only summary statistics were available, achieving performance comparable to tuning with individual-level data. These findings highlight a flexible and generalizable framework for multi-source PGS construction. The GenoPred pipeline supports more equitable, accurate, and accessible polygenic prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.